The auto door locks allow the driver to prevent people from entering his taxi and, when he wants to accept fares, to unlock the doors for passengers who want to get in without having to turn and reach backwards. They also allow him to transport young children (with/without accompanying adults) more safely, without fear of the kids accidentally of intentionally opening a door while the vehicle is in motion and tumbling out.
Auto door locks are not there so that they can detain passengers while attempting to extort money from them.
The rules clearly say that he shouldn't attempt to pay with a $500 note. They had trouble reaching an agreement, it would have been simple to call the police but he chose to save time and accepted the $100. It's pretty lame to come back and complain about it afterwards.
Wrong - read the OP again where jimbo stated he wanted to get change from the 7-11 or have the taxi drive him to the nearest ATM, which the driver refused.He did not refuse to take the passenger, he did not let him out of the taxi without paying. If a guarantee had been made, he would/should have agreed but we'll never know...
Where does it say he can?Where does it say that he can't lock the doors to prevent a passenger from not paying the fare?
I think the term 'false imprisonment' was already mentioned.
No comment.If it was illegal then why would taxis have that capability in the first place?
I don't know if HK has such laws but feel free to quote such. And provide proof that jimbo wanted to steal from the driver, so that your stupid analogy does actually work.Would a store be allowed to detain a customer suspected of stealing?
Actually it seems you are accusing jimbo of having tried to commit a crime, I think the right term for that is libel.
'If' this, 'if' that. No police was called or came, so it's entirely irrelevant what you imagine what would have happened if the police had come.If the police had come, they would have taken the HKID, let the meter run and then get him to pay the fare + time.
Doesn't change the fact that jimbo wanted to pay the fare and the driver was a dick about a situation that could have been easily resolved if the driver had allowed him to get out to the 7-11 or drive him to the nearest ATM (for which he could have charged him).The first one to break a rule was the customer as it clearly states not to attempt to pay with $500 or a $1000 note.
He didn't have a gun pointed to his head and there were plenty of suggestions about getting out of the taxi without paying money. A ransom...What are you? A drama queen? If he's too much of a pussy to stand up for himself and agreed to pay, that's his problem. It doesn't take a genius to know that he could have easily called the cops to help resolve the situation. He just couldn't be bothered to wait and chose to pay. His mistake not to carry change, his decision to pay the money.
Why would a cabbie allow him to get out of the cab without paying in a busy area if there were no guarantee to return. Why would he trust him? Because of his good looks? Who is to know that you wouldn't have run as the other "moral" poster claims she did? We have his word which is basically good for nothing...
As for stupid analogy, how many stores would allow you to leave with the goods without paying with a promise to return later? Why don't you try that at Sogo and see how it goes? False imprisonment!!! Again withe the drama queen... If that's the case then call the police and sue him and we'll see if that'll fly. I seriously doubt it...
The cabbie tried his luck and he just let himself be taken like a child and then feels sorry for himself afterwards. No sympathy there...
gilles, you seriously need to rethink your strategy of winning an argument, clearly it is not working.